Someone push me

[ijohnson]

I am looking for someone to push me over the edge here. I am totally perplexed and just can't spend any more time on this decision.

I am determined to buy a 70-200 lens in 2 weeks. The IS is out as it is just too much money, however the other two are affordable but obviously priced differently.

I am sure that both lenses are sharper than my 10d can resolve so that isn't an issue. As far as the weight, I am only concerned about the difference on-camera, not in the bag.

I would love the extra stop, a lot, but is it worth having that beast on my camera when I am trying to get good candid shots and walking around the streets of Seoul? Can I still hold my camera in one hand with a three pound weight mounted to the 10d. If I am not sitting in a studio with the lens permanently fixed to a tripod is it a feasible lens?

To be honest, I am mostly walking around with my camera and taking day hikes or long walks in the city or the mountains. I am not a professional portrait photographer. However I find myself at street shows or buddhist temples wishing I had one more stop all the time. Granted, that is usually with the 28-135 fully extended (5.6), so the f/4 is one more stop. 2 would be even better though.

Am I going to be bitter if I get the F/4? Somebody tell me what I should be thinking about and please don't send me to a website. I have spent about 50 hours staring at pictures, reviews, comparisons, and threads.

I am experienced enough only to know what everyone is talking about but not to know what I need.

Comments appreciated.

[tommykjensen]

What do You mean with the vote options? Theres a F2.8 or a F4 version, theres not a F8 version.

I have the F4 version and used it a lot this weekend at the Copenhagen Carnival. I don't think it is to heavy for a long period of use, as long as You use the neck strap to support the camera.

[ijohnson]

Oops. I guess you haven't heard of the $150 F/8L.

Fixed it.

[PacAce]

The weight difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8 is just slightly over one pound which really isn't that much. I'm a small guy and I walk around with my 100-400 and my 70-200 IS and I've managed to cope with the weight of these lenses. It's just a matter of getting used to it after a few days of having it.

What I think would be a bigger issue, at least in my case, is the fact that these lenses are not small. They are rather long and VERY conspicuous. And the white body makes them even more so.

If you can justify the cost difference between the f/4 and tne f/2.8, go for the f/2.8 since you've indicated that there were many occassions where you wished you had a faster lens.

[Canuck]

This seems utterly daft...I am not you and will probably never be in the same shoes as you and don't know what you shooting style is and so forth. FWIW, if you can make do with an F4, go for the F4; if not go w/ the F2.8. I have F2.8 coverage from 16-70mm and 120-300mm and that is by my choice. That is what I am getting at, this is your chioce and that is all. :?

<scratches head>

[ijohnson]

This seems utterly daft...I am not you and will probably never be in the same shoes as you and don't know what you shooting style is and so forth. FWIW, if you can make do with an F4, go for the F4; if not go w/ the F2.8. I have F2.8 coverage from 16-70mm and 120-300mm and that is by my choice. That is what I am getting at, this is your chioce and that is all. :?

<scratches head>

REALLY?? That's amazing!! I didn't realize how daft I am. Next time I will write a 200 page novel so that you can explain how it is so daft for me to write such a long post. At least then you would understand my shooting style.:x

Thank you PacAce. That was very helpful. I am glad that you were able to see past the daftness and understand exactly what I was asking.

[defordphoto]

Always go for speed if you can afford it. I battled with the same decision regarding the 70-200L and am very happy I got the 2.8. You have to have at least one fast zoom in your bag. If I could afford it, I'd by ALL 2.8 lenses, but I'm not making quite that much money at this...Yet.

[Canuck]

There are many bits to consider when going F4 vs F2.8. The most obvious is that the 1 fstop difference will cost if not, almost double. I would guess you have the money being that you wanted us to push you into the F2.8 so that rules that out...

Shooting candids seems like you might want to go F2.8 being if you want to blur the background or have a shallow DOF. The other end of the scale, shooting nature pics will more than likely be a good idea to shoot better than F5.6 to whatever the min aperature your perspective lens can do. Mind you, a tripod will be a good idea if shooting on a very small aperature.

Remember the 1/focal length...@ 150mm use no less then 1/150sec (not available) so go 1/200sec for clear shots.

Only you know what you will need/can afford.

[JKSinMB]

This is turning into a landslide for the f/2.8, so let me give you one last reason to consider the f/4. For about the same price and weight of the f/2.8, you can buy the f/4 and an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2. If you need the speed across the zoom range, get the f/2.8, you won't be disappointed. If you can live with a fast prime, it will give you an extra stop compared to the f/2.8 and both of these primes are relatively small and discreet.

I value smallness and lightness, so I bought the f/4. You should be very happy with either lens. Enjoy

[ijohnson]

Anyone have a picture of the 10d with an f/4 on it? I have seen it a few times with the 2.8.

Don't try too hard, but I know that more than a few of you take pictures of your camera, including me.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The use that you describe leads me to believe that the f/4 will have plenty of apertyre for your intended use (outdoor.. casual walking around)

The image quality on these lenses is nearly identical.. certainly not discernable.

Therefore I voted for the f/4

[ijohnson]

OK, I have had the 2.8 for a couple weeks now. Thanks for telling me what I wanted to hear.

[robertwgross]

I guess times have changed since I was last in Seoul. Back then, I would not dare to walk down the downtown streets in the evening with a camera around my neck, whether black lens or white lens. I vaguely remember getting shots at the natural history museum and from the top of Namsan. Back then, it was said that if you throw a rock off the top of Namsan, it will fall on the head of a Kim or a Lee. It sounds like you found one at the Canon shop.

---Bob Gross---

[ijohnson]

Times have changed. This is considered one of the safest cities in the world. So safe in fact that I could comfortably walk around or even take a nap in a park without any fear of someone stealing my gear. The way it seems around here, if I left my gear somewhere I would likely be chased after or there would be an ad in the paper the next morning. I feel safer here than I ever did the US.

[drisley]

So, how do you like the lens?
Does it feel overly heavy?

[ijohnson]

It feels perfect. If it were any lighter I would be suspiscious.

Seriously, I have never heard anyone say that their Rolex is too heavy.

Now its up to me to take bad pictures instead of the lens.

[drisley]

Thanks for the info.
I have had a the 70-200F4L for a few months now and I really like it.
I actually do a lot of low light concert type shooting, so now I am really eyeballing the 2.8L IS. But MAN is that lens expensive. I cant believe it's actually more money than the 100-400L.
I really think I may go the 2.8L route, but I'm just not sure about IS yet.

The F4L isnt heavy at all. However, it does attrack alot of attention. I was walking down the street one day with it, and a guy yelled down at my from the window of his apartment "how many millimeters!". Kind of embarassing. :oops:

Now, you have to send us some pictures, ij

[ijohnson]

I did a shoot tonight for a friend that was performing live at a bar here in Seoul. When he got on stage I whipped out the 10D with the 2.8. People were diving out of my way so that I could get the shots I wanted, except for this one really umm.... non-photogenic guy. He eventually moved though.

It is sort of cool I guess, but not when you have to go out on the dark streets afterward when everyone just saw what is in your stealthy black backpack.

As for IS, I decided against it mainly for price reasons but also because I found with my 28-135 that IS is not useful for moving targets. I like being able to create motion blur in water or a guitarist perhaps while hand-holding, however I will use the 28-135 for that and save the thousand bones towards another L.

I honestly don't feel as if it is a heavy lens until I put the 28-135 on and feel like I just glued a Tonka toy to the front.

[Steveo31]

I'd go for the 2.8... that extra stop can be mighty handy.

[ijohnson]

Now, you have to send us some pictures, ij

OK, here is an image that shows the sharpness and contrast that an L gives you. Too bad the 2.8 doesn't have "AUTO COMPOSITION". A feature I badly need.

http://image.pbase.com/u48/itj12345/upload/30621401.flower5.jpg[/img]